MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1773351004 · doi:10.1111/jspn.12073

Evaluating the feasibility of a parent‐briefing intervention in a pediatric acute care setting

2014· article· en· W1773351004 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen LeGrow, Ellen Hodnett, Robyn Stremler, Eyal Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Test (biology)NursingMedicinePediatric nursingHealth careFamily medicineAcute carePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of a parent-briefing intervention for parents of hospitalized children with complex healthcare needs. DESIGN AND METHODS: A phase I, single-group, posttest study. There were 18 physicians, 25 nurses, and 31 parents who participated in the study. Participants were asked to sit while carrying out the briefings with parents. Parents and clinicians completed a feasibility questionnaire post briefings. RESULTS: Sixty-eight briefings were carried out. Parents and nurses evaluated the briefings in a favorable manner, whereas physicians' ratings were mixed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further inquiry is recommended to understand the effects of a structured communication intervention on parent-professional decision-making practices.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Specialists in Pediatric NursingSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207